Joel, Jim & Jassim - Utd Ownership

[bingham67]

As Utd's ownership, both complaints about the Glazers and potential sale, has become and will continue to be a major talking point it needs it's own thread. Please remember that all the usual rules apply in here too, that means no spoilers! Any rants about the owners in the immediate aftermath of games should remain in the match day threads. BaZ

Sir Jim Ratcliffe could change bid to buy minority stake in Manchester United

The Ineos founder is considering ditching his attempt to take overall control at Old Trafford to end the drawn-out sale process

www.theguardian.com

Hoping this is not true allowing a 25% stake and Glazers to keep in control exactly what they want someone to pump funds into the club.

Sir Jim be about 80 in 10 years need a full sale or nothing.

 

[adam cool dude]

Sir Jim Ratcliffe could change bid to buy minority stake in Manchester United

The Ineos founder is considering ditching his attempt to take overall control at Old Trafford to end the drawn-out sale process

www.theguardian.com

Hoping this is not true allowing a 25% stake and Glazers to keep in control exactly what they want someone to pump funds into the club.

Sir Jim be about 80 in 10 years need a full sale or nothing.

From their point of view it is perfect. They can just milk money even further and sell the club for 10+ billion in the next ten years like everyone thinks is going to happen with clubs.

 

[dannyjo22]

Look at what happened to Newcastle once they got sold. Eddie Howe has done a gone job but 70-80% of it has been to the new owners putting a proper business plan in place.

The massive difference is Newcastle benefited because Ashley spent nothing. United have spent and assigned contracts terribly over a long period of time. They are in a mess regards FFP and you can see that fans don’t understand that when they think United are dithering and missing out on players instead of just handing over whatever it takes.

Forums members on here have said that for years, we can afford it just spend it. Well clearly they cannot and a new owner won’t change that. It will be a few years of further pain to get that in order no matter who buys the club.

Im sure if we go back and look at the thread the first year United were interested in Sancho you will find fans saying just pay it and get it done, they said same when they expressed interest in Grealish.

Rashford has not been United quality ever, yet they keep rewarding the one footed clown with more and more money. So many of those players shouldn’t be anywhere near a United side, including the ones ETH signed.

 

[sigma]

The massive difference is Newcastle benefited because Ashley spent nothing. United have spent and assigned contracts terribly over a long period of time. They are in a mess regards FFP and you can see that fans don’t understand that when they think United are dithering and missing out on players instead of just handing over whatever it takes.

Forums members on here have said that for years, we can afford it just spend it. Well clearly they cannot and a new owner won’t change that. It will be a few years of further pain to get that in order no matter who buys the club.

Im sure if we go back and look at the thread the first year United were interested in Sancho you will find fans saying just pay it and get it done, they said same when they expressed interest in Grealish.

Rashford has not been United quality ever, yet they keep rewarding the one footed clown with more and more money. So many of those players shouldn’t be anywhere near a United side, including the ones ETH signed.

You've just explained why we need new owners.

 

[dannyjo22]

You've just explained why we need new owners.

If you believe that different owners wouldn’t have done what the glaziers did, back up buys they wanted to make then I guess yeah. It doesn’t matter what owners you had you would have at least started with Moyes after fergie. Anything after that is fair game but you can’t say they didn’t appoint the best maanger available apart from ole and then back the spending.

 

[sigma]

If you believe that different owners wouldn’t have done what the glaziers did, back up buys they wanted to make then I guess yeah. It doesn’t matter what owners you had you would have at least started with Moyes after fergie. Anything after that is fair game but you can’t say they didn’t appoint the best maanger available apart from ole and then back the spending.

That's just a nothing statement really. We need new owners.

 

[JamesH85]

That's just a nothing statement really. We need new owners.

What a kick in the teeth it would be should the Glazers remain in charge with Ratcliffe only taking a minority stake?

 

[shipinabottle]

If you believe that different owners wouldn’t have done what the glaziers did, back up buys they wanted to make then I guess yeah. It doesn’t matter what owners you had you would have at least started with Moyes after fergie. Anything after that is fair game but you can’t say they didn’t appoint the best maanger available apart from ole and then back the spending.

Let me understand this... No owners can fix the club? Every owner would have done what the Glazers did? So someone like FSG couldn't have came in and rebuild the way it's structured?

Generally befuddled with what you're trying to express again Danny... Or you're not appreciating there's more to a club than a manager and the spending on players... you're better than that, you're an Everton fan (from what I recall). No manager has changed your fortunes whilst you're under poor and irresponsible leadership...

The strange thing is it's like you're shouting at the club (who we all know haven't seen the sense of day clearly since Gill & Fergie left...) and just telling them they're bad at any given thing. Like the one at the back who just criticizes and doesn't offer any meaningful contribution... 'they're rubbish, nobody can change this...' when factually that's absolute nonsense and not really helpful to any meaningful debate or discussion here.

 

[sigma]

What a kick in the teeth it would be should the Glazers remain in charge with Ratcliffe only taking a minority stake?

It would be a kick in the teeth, the nuts, the eyes, the anus, the face, the ears, everywhere. Not convicned by the Rat, even if he takes full ownership.

 

[BaZ87]

If you believe that different owners wouldn’t have done what the glaziers did, back up buys they wanted to make then I guess yeah. It doesn’t matter what owners you had you would have at least started with Moyes after fergie. Anything after that is fair game but you can’t say they didn’t appoint the best maanger available apart from ole and then back the spending.

This is a massive part of the problem though. Despite Neville and some Utd fans complaining about them not backing the manager with signings after they've just spent circa £200m, the one thing you cannot criticise the Glazers of doing is allowing managers to spend and sign the players they want. The problem is they're blindly backing managers, without any thought of what comes next.

From a football point of view, the Glazers biggest failing is that they've never had a proper long term plan that they've stuck to and or employed the people to put that plan in place. Instead of appointing a manager to fit a certain style or philosophy, Utd appoint a manager and allow him to do as he pleases. It's not sustainable and is why ETH can spend circa £400m on signings and you look at the Utd squad and it still needs a lot of work because too much of the spending that went before ETH is now wasted.

 

[adam cool dude]

This is a massive part of the problem though. Despite Neville and some Utd fans complaining about them not backing the manager with signings after they've just spent circa £200m, the one thing you cannot criticise the Glazers of doing is allowing managers to spend and sign the players they want. The problem is they're blindly backing managers, without any thought of what comes next.

From a football point of view, the Glazers biggest failing is that they've never had a proper long term plan that they've stuck to and or employed the people to put that plan in place. Instead of appointing a manager to fit a certain style or philosophy, Utd appoint a manager and allow him to do as he pleases. It's not sustainable and is why ETH can spend circa £400m on signings and you look at the Utd squad and it still needs a lot of work because too much of the spending that went before ETH is now wasted.

Haha we never get the players we want but left overs that we end up paying lots for.

We missed out on both Haaland, Bellingham and let Kane go to Bayern. That would have never of happened pre Glazers. In Ole's recent interview he basically said he didn't get what he really wanted.

The Glazers appoint who works for them so the blame is solely with them.

 

[BaZ87]

Haha we never get the players we want but left overs that we end up paying lots for.

We missed out on both Haaland, Bellingham and let Kane go to Bayern. That would have never of happened pre Glazers.

Talk about completely missing the point. Haaland and Bellingham turned Utd down, it wasn't a case of the Glazers preventing the manager from signing them. Utd managers have been given big money to spend and have had control over who has been signed. There hasn't been a clear strategy from the club to sign certain types of player that fit a particular way of playing, with managers appointed to work within that style/philosophy/system. They've worked the opposite way with the next manager arriving wanting to play a completely different way and having half a squad that's no use to him. As I said, this is the Glazer's biggest failing from a football point of view.

 

[HangTime]

You can't seriously be suggesting Haaland would have joined United instead of City based on them having different owners. He went to City because they are a much better team with a better manager and much more chance to win trophies there. As proven last season, no way he would've won the treble at MU (heck they weren't even in the Champions League). And that's before you even consider who his father is.

Bellingham who knows but keep in mind the last English player to join MU from Dortmund hasn't had a perfect start to their OT career which could be off-putting.

As for Kane I think that was more realistic but rumours are Levy's preference was not to sell him to a potential PL rival for European qualification.

 

[sigma]

This is a massive part of the problem though. Despite Neville and some Utd fans complaining about them not backing the manager with signings after they've just spent circa £200m, the one thing you cannot criticise the Glazers of doing is allowing managers to spend and sign the players they want. The problem is they're blindly backing managers, without any thought of what comes next.

Who is complaining these days that the manager isn't being backed? Why do people keep bringing up old stories? It's only fans from other teams that seem to bring this up.

Rangnick told MUFC what the problems were/are and they didn't like what he told them.

 

[BaZ87]

Who is complaining these days that the manager isn't being backed? Why do people keep bringing up old stories? It's only fans from other teams that seem to bring this up.

Rangnick told MUFC what the problems were/are and they didn't like what he told them.

I literally said who in my post

 

[sigma]

Haha we never get the players we want but left overs that we end up paying lots for.

We missed out on both Haaland, Bellingham and let Kane go to Bayern. That would have never of happened pre Glazers. In Ole's recent interview he basically said he didn't get what he really wanted.

The Glazers appoint who works for them so the blame is solely with them.

We didn't miss out on any of those. We're a **** club with no philosophy, we can only attract people after a payday or who we overpay for. Even if we paid £150m for Kane we wouldn't be winning ****.

 

[sigma]

I literally said who in my post

Neville doesn't seem to have said it recently has he? When analysing the current issues?

 

[BaZ87]

Neville doesn't seem to have said it recently has he? When analysing the current issues?

I can't remember which match exactly but during his commentary of a recent match he came out with it - I clearly remember as I made a comment about it on the forum. As well as Neville there's indisputably a section of Utd fans that claim that the Glazers don't provide enough resources to Utd managers.

 

[sigma]

I can't remember which match exactly but during his commentary of a recent match he came out with it - I clearly remember as I made a comment about it on the forum. As well as Neville there's indisputably a section of Utd fans that claim that the Glazers don't provide enough resources to Utd managers.

The reason I could think of for people saying something along those lines is that our transfers are always last minute or dragged out or random (Mount) etc. I mean last season it took embarrassing losses for them to pull the trigger on the transfers so in a sense I guess they didn't back the manager until they had no option but to.

As you say this is also due to general lack of strategy and common sense.

 

[BaZ87]

The reason I could think of for people saying something along those lines is that our transfers are always last minute or dragged out or random (Mount) etc. I mean last season it took embarrassing losses for them to pull the trigger on the transfers so in a sense I guess they didn't back the manager until they had no option but to.

I'm not sure Utd's signings are any more last minute than any other sides, that appears to be an excuse used to justify why you pay crazy fees. Utd didn't sign Antony because you lost to Brentford - you were negotiating that deal for most of the summer and given how he's performed, you can understand why the club were trying to drive the price down. Ultimately though they agreed to pay £80m odd for him as that was the player ETH wanted. Similarly Utd wasted most of last summer chasing FdJ as he was the guy ETH wanted, despite reports throughout the summer stating FdJ didn't want to join. You didn't sign Casemiro because of the early loses, it was because you finally accepted FdJ wasn't going to happen.